Bite-Sized Science: Student Interactions with Public Science Communication

Video: Where do respondents "get" scientific information?

Dr. Martin: One of the first questions we asked was, "Where do you encounter public science information?" We expected participants to name social media sites, especially ones like TikTok and Youtube—and several did. Seven participants named specific social media sites as their sources, while another six said "the internet" more generically. We were surprised, though, by the number of participants who indicated they encounter science communication mostly, if exclusively, in textbooks and in class—six participants mentioned these sources, while another four named more generic academic sources like our library's website. These did not strike us as sources of public science communication—and, we had assumed that students studying STEM-related fields would engage with science communication on their own, outside of the classroom setting.

There was very little nuance in respondents' answers, with only five people indicated they look for scientific information in different places, depending on their purpose or needs. This junior aeronautics major provides a particularly thorough response that highlights the importance of context and purpose:

Interviewee: "It depends on the context. If I were to do, like, work for school or work for class, I would rather have Google Scholar. I like Consensus, also, is like a web scraper of scientific articles. I like that one. Generally, for my leisure, I like scientific dissemination YouTube channels with some legit backgrounds. Veritasium, I like that one. There are also YouTube channels in Spanish that I really like that are pro-scientific dissemination."

Dr. Martin: Consensus, which he describes as a "web scraper," bills itself as "an academic search engine powered by AI and we're on a mission to make the world's best knowledge more accessible" (Learn About Concensus, 2025). Users ask it a question, and it responds with a concise answer, academic sources that support that response, and a brief summary of those individual sources. Users must create an account to ask questions, and those who have free, rather than paid subscription accounts, have limits on the number and types of response they receive each month. Sources are drawn from Semantic Scholar, another academic-focused AI tool that uses a database from academic and scholarly publishers and journals. Here, we see a student explain a resource that blends the academic and public science realms and that boasts that leading universities like Princeton, Harvard, and UCLA "research with Consensus." It could be an exciting and promising tool for achieving its goal, making academic scholarship that is typically locked behind a paywall or membership more easily accessible, and understandable, to anyone who creates an account. It also presents itself as doing the vetting for visitors, both by drawing on scholarly publications and providing clearer summaries. On the other hand, it seems to be doing the difficult work of evaluating, understanding, and synthesizing sources for users, perhaps limiting the development of various literacies that come with the practice of researching, reading, and working with sources.

Still, we appreciate how this student pointed to specific sources, recognizing their different use-cases. This is a stark contrast to a first-year aerospace engineering major, who said this:

Interviewee: "Oh, this is, this is probably gonna sound bad, but I'm a big internet kinda guy. Um, I mean, back in the day I used to watch, like, the Smithsonian and Science channel and Discovery channel to get a lot of information, but I feel like the internet is a pretty reputable place now."

Dr. Martin: As we also discuss in the video "How do participants determine the accuracy of scientific data?", participants often took a monolithic view of sources of information. In this case, all sources on the internet are equally valid and reliable and are, apparently, a step-up from scientific television programming. It's most likely that more novice students like this one are still developing the content knowledge and expertise necessary to understand scientific information and the critical literacy skills needed to act on that expertise when viewing sources.

A second-year master's student in occupational safety management—the one master's student to participate in the study—however, provided much more insight in his response as he distinguished between sources for "popular" and academic use:

Interviewee: "Uh, so, in terms of popular science information, I try to stay current with, um, news sources—Associated Press, Reuters, stuff like that—but then when it comes to actually doing research, um, I go through the university-sponsored portals to access all the scientific databases—JSTOR, that type of stuff."

Dr. Martin: This student, who had an understanding of journalism from previous educational experiences, recognized both the difference between popular sources found on reputable news agencies and academic sources used by specialists, like databases that provide access to studies and scholarship that are typically behind a paywall or university sponsorship.

One bright spot in our study is the low number of students who indicated they don't encounter public science information—there were only two participants who responded in this way, both aeronautical science majors in their junior and senior years. It's also possible that they do encounter public science information but, for whatever reason, do not think of it as public science information. It's also possible that more respondents would have said no if we'd put a more strong dinstinction between public and academic science information. In hindsight, we could have emphasized that we were interested in public and popular sources by repeating it in our initial question rather than simply stating it at the start of the interview. We recognize that providing a more developed definition of public science communication could have led to different responses, for both these two participants and for others.

So, what do participants' answers to the question Where do you get scientific information? tell us about their engagement with public science communication? First, it seems that students don't have a strong sense of their own habits, given the number of participants who provided vague answers like "the internet," or "social media," or "the library website." Definitions of multiple literacies—like scientific, media, information, and digital literacy—emphasize the importance of understanding information in its specific context, which is difficult to do when broad tools are viewed as "sources" themselves. As (mostly) undergraduate students, participants in our study are still developing these literacies, as well as the content expertise necessary for their majors; even those nearing the end of their undergraduate education may still be in the early stages of enculturation into their fields and disciplines. This starts to become even more clear when we asked students how they assess the credibility of public science information. Check out that video to learn more.

Video: How did participants determine the accuracy of scientific information?

Dr. Martin: Regardless of where students typically find scientific information, we wanted to understand how they determined if this information was accurate to better understand their literacy practices. We found two major trends: 1) Participants made judgments based on their understanding of the creator or publishers' ethos, and/or 2) they made judgments based on source use, including by corroborating what a source said with other sources of information.

Let's dig into ethos first, with the important caveat that no students used the term ethos in their responses. Rather, they pointed to several categories that we recognize as evaluating the ethos of either a source's creator or its publication venue. Eighteen of our respondents mentioned one or more qualities that we ultimately coded as ethos: Twelve of these related to where a source was found or who published it, five were related to the creator's known expertise, three were related to the presence of bias in the source, and two were related to the creator's popularity, both of which were specifically about social media creators. Many of these comments emphasize a static, one-size-fits-all approach to "credibility" that doesn't account for how authority is constructed in context. Take a listen to a few:

Interviewee: "I usually cross-reference with other information, um, also just credibility of, like, where it was published, peer-reviewed and such."

Interviewee: "Uh, usually I only believe in news taken from the scientific journals, or, uh, it depends on the person and how I determine their credibility."

Interviewee: "If it's like an article, mainly, like if it's like a dot-edu, um, and then like a dot-com, I know more to stay focused towards the educational ones, as that's always been told to do and those are more accurate, I guess."

Interviewee: "Uh, usually, I would look for some websites that I already know and trust, that I already know, that I've used before and have proven to be accurate. Uh, if that doesn't work, I usually look for websites with like a dot-org or dot-net, not usually like a dot-com. And, uh, I always check their sources."

Interviewee: "Well, they're government owned, so I, uh, I would hope that they are accurate. But, um, obviously you can't trust everyone. So, that's like, I guess I base it off of, um, how professional I see them. So, the National Hurricane Center, any government-owned organizations, I see as very professional and credible. Um, and then also what other people think and, I guess, how widely it's dispersed between the community."

Dr. Martin: Here, respondents suggest that some sources are always, or perhaps inherently, credible, including government websites, institutional websites, and scientific journals. They judge the accuracy of information based on whether they have been told that source is reliable or credible or whether they have determined it to be reliable and credible in the past.

Here, we see literacy practices that reflect "answer-getting" dispositions: Education is a process of finding the one "right" answer and repeating it, and when it comes to credible sources, those are scholarly publications, government sources, and education websites. This static view of credibility reminds us that scientific literacy involves more than "the ability to read and write about science," and includes, as Susanna Priest (2014) described, an "understanding of how science actually works, as a set of social institutions and practices that are governed by a set of normative and procedural assumptions" (p. 144). Students might see Nature and other journals in its portfolio as an inherently trustworthy journal because they've been instructed that academic sources are credible. As our research team talked about this theme, we wondered how students might respond to prevalence of retractions in scientific journal publications (Van Noorden, 2023)—how can a credible source publish something so wrong it must be retracted? Experts with highly developed scientific literacy skills, however, might see retractions as a sign of credibility itself because they recognize that wrong answers are part of the research process because scientific knowledge changes as more research is conducted.

As educators in Florida, we were also surprised by the common assertion that government websites were inherently trustworthy. Sources like the Pew Research Center (2022) regularly document mounting distrust in the U.S. federal government broadly. COVID-19 brought with it a wealth of scientific misinformation, that, paired with changes in recommended responses in the early stages of the pandemic, contributed to distrust of government entities and their recommendations. The state of Florida itself has been caught in allegations that they manipulated data related to the pandemic and the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (AP News, 2023). Amid an American culture that seems to be increasingly undermining academic credentials and ideas of expertise, participants in our study still perceived the government as a reliable source for scientific information. This static view of credibility can contribute to widespread misinformation when literate individuals only determine if a person or source is credible overall rather than credible to speak on a specific topic or issue.

Respondents who talked about the individual creator's credibility, rather than the credibility of the publication venue or tools used to find the information, were more likely to look at their authority in that given context. These respondents indicated looking for a creator's credentials, like training in the field or active research on the topic, or the sources the creator used to determine if a source itself is accurate. Here are a couple of comments:

Interviewee: "The background of the person doing the actual videos. If I know the guy is working for a PhD in physics, and doing some scientific dissemination about black holes, or they started an official YouTube channel, or, um, talking about nature, the NPS [National Park Service] official channel. Uh, I think that's also like a really good consideration. So, that would be like both. See if they have any sources under their description. Do they have something to hide? Basically that, and also, like the actual rapport and background of the person doing the content."

Interviewee: "I try to corroborate. Um, generally, if someone is corroborating, then that's good. But then also, I try to find people who, um, maybe work in the field. So, there's some people like, um, I don't know if you know Sabine Hofstaedter or whatever her name is. But, she, she works in the field, so I trust some of the things she says that are related to that field."

Dr. Martin: These two respondents determine the accuracy of a source of information by considering the person or people who created it in complex ways. Sabine Hossenfelder, a theoretical physicist, is not identified as always credible; instead, this respondent says they trust what she says related to her specific field. While these two students look for credentials or expertise to determine if a creator or the information they share is accurate, others suggested that public science communication on social media sites could be deemed credible by popularity and engagement. Here's what they said:

Interviewee: "Uh, usually I just go by, like, comments that might be on the feed, or just like, their following. If they have a huge following, I know it's pretty accurate, because they wouldn't if it wasn't."

Interviewee: "Um, I guess popularity as well, um, how many followers they have, how many, like, how others… sometimes news stations will want to interview them, so obviously they see them as credible. So, um, just popularity, how much they post."

Dr. Martin: For these two students, social media content creators are credible not because they have specific credentials or backgrounds, whether those are academic or experiential, but because they have a huge following. It is disheartening to see one student suggest that someone would not have a huge following if they were not credible and their information was not accurate. This is precisely how misinformation spreads swiftly across social media sites, where algorithms favor posts with engagement and popular posts get tagged with warnings about their inaccuracies.

These misperceptions about accuracy and credibility are not the only misperceptions our respondents shared. Two others suggest that credibility could be determined by the format of the source alone. Here's one respondent:

Interviewee: "It's usually pretty easy to tell, um, just because most articles that I read are, um, like a publication, um, that's been done from research so, there's usually a PDF link so you can search up the people who have done the research, or, um, you can also tell from the article, easy. If there's a lot of ads or if it just looks suspicious, um, or the quality is really bad, then it's like, alright."

Dr. Martin: Another respondent, a first-year aerospace engineering major, said, "If I have to download it, it gives it extra credibility."

Very few respondents indicate they looked at the information or the content of the source itself to determine its accuracy. One participant who did mention content focused on content that could reveal bias, saying:

Interviewee: "Sometimes, I see if there's like a lot of advertisements on the website, then I'm like, ok, this is probably just a very biased source, cause they don't have their own source of income. Um, if it doesn't have like references at the bottom, I also say it could be biased. And then you can tell by the language they use, so if they start using, like, really strong language or they start doing something that's very, like, could get opinionated, then I would say that it could also be very biased."

Dr. Martin: "And when it comes to magazines, how do you determine their accuracy?"

Interviewee: "Uh, I would say maybe based on the producer or the publisher's name. So, if it's like a well-known name, I'll assume that it's more, like, informational and less biased. But it it's something random, like, Daytona news article or something really small, then I'll be like, it could have more bias."

Dr. Martin: Fortunately, only a few respondents shared misperceptions of how to evaluate source accuracy. For these participants, sources could "look" credible by its form, language, or the presence of advertising. Sources that did not "look" credible in these limited ways seem to set off a scavenger hunt for bias.

Reviewing and corroborating sources was another common theme in how respondents used a source's content to determine the accuracy of information. For at least one respondent, the mere presence of sources seemed to be enough to suggest accuracy. For others, those sources were more heavily scrutinized, looking for consistency among multiple sources. One student described doing a "forward/backward" lit review:

Interviewee: "One of the tricks that I picked up from some of my professors in the program was the forward/backward lit reviews, um, so going forward and seeing if it's been cited since then, going backward to check the credentials of the original sources, that sort of stuff."

Dr. Martin: Others merely noted the importance of cross-referencing information with other sources. This suggests that students are embracing the "F" in what some librarians refer to as the SIFT method for evaluating sources of information (Caulfield, 2019). That "F" stands for "Find Better Coverage," and it encourages consumers of information to establish consensus by looking for additional sources on the claim.

On the other hand, two respondents suggested they could rely on their own knowledge to determine if a source of information is credible, with one describing this as a "gut check." At best, this could indicate that students in our programs are developing their expertise as a part of their studies. More realistically, it suggests the prevalence of confirmation bias, in which people are more likely to believe sources of information that "back up" what they already believe. At worst, these comments might illustrate the Dunning–Kruger effect, which suggests that the less one knows about an area, the more confident they are in their knowledge of it. Taken together, all three of these interpretations suggest that some participants engage in cursory, if not problematic, methods for determining accuracy.

Our respondents, then, seem to have developed academic skills to help them determine the accuracy of information they encounter, even if they may take those skills at face-value, such as trusting a dot-edu source because they've always been told that dot-edu sites are credible. This may be part of why respondents seemed confident of their abilities to successfully determine the accuracy of information they encounter online. Only one respondent seemed to acknowledge that other people may not find the same sources credible when she discussed how she determined if Twitter meteorologists were accurate sources of information.

These interviews, and the themes we found as we analyzed them, illustrate the difficulty of developing literacy practices in an algorithmically driven society where the technologies and methods of communication change rapidly. The Association of Research Librarians recognized over a decade ago that the previous ways of talking about and teaching information literacy were no longer sufficient. Rather than focusing on skills, they emphasize threshold concepts, or ways of thinking and practicing that are crucial for epistemological participation in a discipline (Meyer & Land, 2006). In order to build information literacy skills, individuals need to develop conceptual understanding of finding, evaluating, and integrating information rather than (only) a skill-based understanding. That is, in order to successfully evaluate a source of information, they need to have a strong understanding of the conceptual elements that contribute to a source's credibility and reliability that are less likely to be taught than the easy rules to only use a dot-edu or a dot-gov website or that peer-reviewed journals are always reliable.

Literacy scholarship also leads us to question if the academic skills students are being taught are actually the most appropriate or useful, especially for sources of public science information. Respondents stated the importance of cross-referencing sources or "corroborating" information, but academics may be teaching expert skills that are more effective for sustained research than they are for the quick verification of information. Absent skills that may be more appropriate to online spaces, like lateral reading, individuals may be left to rely on "gut checks" and rules they've encountered in multiple academic spaces.

Video: How does the public determine the accuracy of scientific information?

Dr. Wojton: When asked how the public determines the accuracy of scientific information, eight out of our 21 interviewees indicated that they do not believe the general public always determines the accuracy of scientific information they encounter. In response to this question, one junior Aeronautics major and one senior in Aerospace Engineering simply responded, "They don't," followed by a chuckle. Three other participants responded similarly:

Interviewee: "Uh, they probably don't. I don't think they do."

Interviewee: "Most of them don't."

Interviewee: "I'd probably say they also just believe it. I think a lot of people just see something and instantly believe it."

Dr. Wojton: This is especially interesting in light of our interviewees' responses to how they determine the accuracy of scientific information, with all respondents indicating that they take some measures to determine the accuracy. However, these responses do align with trends in research, with several studies indicating that most people have greater faith in their own ability to spot misinformation than they attribute to others (Buturoiu et al., 2017; Chang, 2021; Corbu et al., 2020; Yang & Horning, 2020). Researchers have also noted that higher education also contributes to individuals' perceived ability to identify credible and accurate information (Gondwe, 2023; Reuter et al., 2019). While students may be correct that their scientific literacy is increasingly reliable, much of the "general public" are also college-educated, so this too indicates a bias toward the positive perception of their skills and their diminished expectations for those they consider "others."

Three participants provided slightly more nuanced responses, indicating that in some situations, the general public won't take the time to determine the accuracy of scientific information. One aerospace engineering junior believes the public's determination of the accuracy of scientific information "depends on what field they're in," but that "some people just don't really think about it too much and kinda just go with what they have seen. I know there are a lot of people on the bigger social media sites who just take what is said [word] for word, and they don't really conduct much background [research]. But there's also another side, there are some people who will nitpick every minute detail." This response seems to double down on the notion that one's position relative to the work of science contributes to the ability to determine the accuracy of public science communication. While this has the potential to be true in some cases, this seems to indicate a potential misperception regarding the purpose (and, indeed, the definition we provided) of public science communication. See our acknowledgment of how challenging it might have been for students to reconcile these ideas with the limited definition of scientific information that we provided in our first video on where our respondents get their scientific information.

One freshman in engineering physics said, "If they do decide to determine the accuracy, I would say that they do it pretty [much] similarly to me, looking for those dot-gov, dot-org websites, looking for research papers that people have, like, published, but then sometimes, I think that people don't bother to check the accuracy and then, that's like, what happens."

One mechanical engineering junior put it like this:

Interviewee: "I don't think they do, uh, I think they click on the first link that shows up on Google, um, and so that's their source. Um, I'm sure there are definitely people out there who go take their time to look up the stuff when they're trying to look at it and do proper research, but for most people, it's usually like, cause I know on my phone I have the Google feed where it tells me things, and sometimes I do check it out when I'm not trying to do like serious research, um, but I'm sure a lot of people would just click on the first link on Google and that's how they would get their information.

Dr. Wojton: These responses point out an interesting tension: These participants seem to recognize that the general public might possess the ability to critically analyze the accuracy and credibility of scientific information while also recognizing that many members of the general public may choose not to do so, for a variety of reasons. 

In contrast, seven participants indicated that the public determines the accuracy of scientific information in the same ways they do, with some students explicitly stating the similarities between their behavior and the public in their responses. We see one example of this in the quote from a freshman engineering physics major discussed previously, who stated that "If they do decide to determine the accuracy, I would say that they do it pretty similarly to me," while one junior communication major believed that the general public considers expertise and level of education of the author or creator.

Let's hear some other responses:

Interviewee: "In general, I would say the public probably just the language that's used, and the name behind the written work, so they're probably going to say that a bigger publisher is more, like, accurate, less-biased, than a smaller publisher."

Interviewee: "I think they look it up on Google, mainly. Also, trusting the news. I feel like a lot of people trust the news because what they say is, like, gonna be true all the time. That can't always be the case, but um, I know, especially, I feel like older generations tend to look at the news more but younger generations will immediately look it up on Google."

Interviewee: "I think the public, they base, like, their, like the accuracy of scientific information on, like, whose telling it, so if it's like experts in the field, or like if someone opens up and oh, this is an established person who has been, like, doing this for this many years, or like, what their educational backing is, and like, if they have a degree or certifications."

Interviewee: "I think the public determines that by… kinda like me, almost. Um, using and looking to see if whoever is talking about a set topic has experience or education in the field. And if they are knowledgeable about the subject area. I think that if someone is college educated or passionate about the subject, that also kinda aids in the public's view of their credibility."

Dr. Wojton: While a couple of participants did qualify their answers, with one participant stating, "I hope," meaning that they hope the public determines the accuracy of science information similarly to the way that they do, and another noting that "sometimes people don't bother to check the accuracy," overall, these participants articulated very few distinctions between how they and the general public determine the accuracy of science information.

Eight participants also indicated that the general public considers the publication source and/or the author/creator of the scientific information when determining its accuracy, with three participants specifically noting that the general public favorably views expertise in the field and level of education when determining the accuracy of scientific information. These responses are in stark contrast to this participant, who notes the public's growing mistrust of science, a topic further discussed in our second video on how participants determine the accuracy of scientific information:

Interviewee: "Well, there's a lot of distrust for the scientific community nowadays. Um, and I think that's because most people aren't educated well enough on it, um, or don't care enough to understand it. But then, when it affects them, they don't know how to react."

Dr. Wojton: This student's response reflects the tension that scholars like Priest (2014) have noted in the concept of critical science literacy: In order to develop critical science literacy, individuals must be familiar not only with scientific facts, but must understand how the process of scientific discovery works. However, as this student notes, if people lack education in the scientific process and do not see the value in working to understand the process, distrust for the scientific community is likely to grow.

Video: Why does it matter how the public assesses the accuracy of scientific information?

Dr. Wojton: When we asked students why it mattered if or how the public assessed the accuracy of scientific information, 11 participants mentioned misinformation as a concern. However, few students give specific examples of misinformation. Take a listen:

Interviewee: "Well, if you don't, then you can fall for very many incorrect things, in the science world, that is very important. Um, because if you have the wrong idea about how certain things work, especially from the medical perspective, then…"

Interviewee: "Because it could be completely incorrect, and that's dangerous, I guess.

Interviewee: "Because a lot of decisions are being made based on scientific information, sometimes, but if people have inaccurate information, they can't really make a decision about it."

Interviewee: "Uh, because people form opinions and say or do things based off of information they've given. Typically not from validating it or actually looking into it, and I feel like that can lead to some ill comings."

Interviewee: "Because, like, if someone reads something that isn't accurate then, like, they're gonna learn about it, and then probably tell people, use it to like, for their findings, and it's all completely wrong, and then everything's bad."

Interviewee: "Uh, a lot of times, I think the easiest example that people point to for this is like the Wall Street Journal/New York Times. Uh, they have very well-known biases in their opinion sections, but then their news sources are actually pretty dead on most of the time. Uh, so when people look at that, sometimes they'll ascribe the level of credibility that the news services have into the opinion sections, for the author's editorial perspectives, which may not have the same level of backing, probably, from the source. I think that one of the things that especially, um, in the current sort of zeitgeist of politics and social media and everything there, something that I've tried to become a lot more cautious of, as I've sort of have gotten a little bit older, has been being able to poke holes in my own reasoning, and hopefully build better sources of reasoning moving forward. Um, I think a lot of times, especially nowadays, it's very easy to get insulated into, we hear the term echo chamber a lot, but more than that, the echo chambers can then take on their own narratives that can then force what sort of they take it moving forward and bend off from the initial identifying characteristics. I think that's a pretty easy pathway to radicalization and sort of losing touch with the actual day to day, uh, realities."

Interviewee: "Uh, it's important for a bunch of reasons. Uh, antivaxxers are a big problem. Uh, for one, cause if more people start not taking vaccines, then all the viruses that we've kind of eliminated from our lives are gonna come back again. Um, and, ya know, we have to reach herd immunity for that. And then there's other stuff, like people not believing we go to space, which is just a personal pet peeve, um, yeah."

Interviewee: "It matters because, um, I've seen a plethora of examples of that happening, especially with any single disaster happening in the U.S., magically everyone becomes a civil engineer with the Baltimore bridge, everyone suddenly becomes naval engineers with the Ocean Gate submarine, everyone suddenly becomes a bioengineer for the Covid vaccine, and we can go on and on and on. Aerospace engineer for the Boeing fiasco with the door seal. Generally, either we have a lot of STEM majors for already a plethora of really niche topics instantaneously, or something's going off."

Interviewee: "Because we end up with people that believe that putting a potato sucks out the toxins from a vaccine."

Interviewee: "It's like, for, an environmental thing, if it's like, they have the agenda of saving the environment, then usually their statistics are pretty credible and stuff, so…"

Dr. Wojton: Two students specifically mentioned misinformation surrounding vaccines as dangerous, while another student referenced the danger of inaccurate medical information. One student who mentioned anti-vaxxers also noted conspiracy theories as dangerous, specifically referencing the conspiracy theory that the moon landing was fake. This juxtaposition is interesting, in that there are drastically different levels of danger involved in these two types of misinformation. While a misunderstanding of vaccine science can result in significant public health issues, a belief that the moon landing was fake is unlikely to cause widespread danger.  However, it is important to note that individuals who believe in one conspiracy theory are more likely to believe in additional conspiracy theories (Williams et al., 2022). As a result, a belief in a "harmless" conspiracy may lead to believing other, more dangerous, conspiracy theories.

Additionally, one student focused on the way in which members of the general public often become "armchair experts" in the face of public disasters. Though the student did not mention the Dunning–Kruger effect by name, this theory is important to his perception of expertise. Members of the public who do not have scientific expertise may vastly overestimate their own understanding, thus leading them to inaccurate assumptions.

Overall, this study's participants recognize that potential dangers of inaccurate or biased scientific information exist, but mostly fail to provide specific examples and/or to dig into the ultimate consequence of a lack of information literacy, which is the loss of trust in institutions like public health agencies. Students focus on the sensationalized, common talking points like anti-vaxxers and the moon landing hoax, while not acknowledging the role that science literacy, rather than information literacy plays in these issues. During the Covid crisis, in the U.S., it was a lack of critical science literacy, rather than misinformation, that caused the most problems when it came to establishing trust in reliable information. We were surprised because we expected that those who have a high degree of critical science literacy, as we may expect of STEM students, would acknowledge issues related to science literacy, rather than only focusing on information literacy.

Transcript: Did students experience public science communication before enrolling at our university?

Professor Hejnar: In addition to understanding how participants determined the accuracy of scientific information, we wanted to understand how students experienced information literacy. In our survey, we asked students how they experienced public science communication before attending our university. Despite the prevalence of public scientific information from general online sites, most students credited nonspecialist internet sources and high school courses with their scientific knowledge foundation.

When specifically asked if they had experienced public science communication prior to attending college, 20 out of 21 students answered "yes" with several distinct answers. Out of those 20 students, six attributed their learning to high school academics, with three references to high school generally, two noting high school textbooks, and one naming a specific independent study they completed. Two of the 20 students noted specific social media sites for previous scientific communication: Tiktok, Instagram, and Twitter (now X). Interestingly, six students noted a variety of specific sources. Here are their responses:

Interviewee: "I did. Uh, I used to get like an astronomy magazine, like, every month, um, in high school, and then I would just look up a bunch of stuff about NASA, go to their website on those articles."

Interviewee: "Oh, of course. I remember I had some translated versions of VHS tapes of PBS shows in Spanish. I really liked them. It was probably one of the main reasons I liked science. The Discovery Channel, back when they did some scientific things, I think, also. I grew up. And that's probably key… science should be accessible. So, I agree, really should not be so Draconion, so deep into the topics. But also, not going to the other side where it becomes both unscientific and both spreads misinformation."

Interviewee: "I was very interested, constantly, uh, I was never into like cartoons, or kid's TV programming. Back when I was kid, I would either read books for fun—that's how I was raised, lots of books—or if I was allowed to use the TV, it would be, um, I mean I could have watched anything but I decided to watch the Science Channel or the Smithsonian, or, uh Discovery—cause I was always interested in that kind of communication."

Interviewee: "But I feel like growing up, you see a lot of Little Einsteins, Sid the Science Kid, and stuff like that, so I feel like stuff like that can definitely, just open up the world of STEM to young people, But I… I honestly like, I got all of that in my youth, and then for a while, I wasn't interested in STEM at all, and then when I got to certain classes in high school, that's when I like, started being like interested in it again and considering that as a future. I would say it's mostly classes and that kind of like, in-person thing that you get between you and your professor or you and other students that, that swayed me the most."

Interviewee: "Yeah, I got a lot of it from, um, Mustard—that's a, that's a aerospace/technical thing. Like (undistinguishable) Engineering Explained, and others. Kinda like, when I'm bored during COVID I just watched that and be like, ok, this is pretty sick. A lot of their, a lot of like probably the most likely unbiased channels I get from."

Interviewee: "Yes, uh, so I was, again, lucky enough to work in high school journalism and then, just through that school I went to, we were able to work a lot with, uh, the different subject specific professional journals and science sources through there. Um, I'll always forget when the… I think it was when the Higgs boson particle was identified. We had a ton of articles that were coming through with that or a particle like that, and then we also looked at, whenever there was the big meteor over Russia a few years back, um, that was the sort of thing we dove into that and sort of the takes on whether or not—at the time, people were thinking it was going to be an apocalyptic event or nothing—so sort of working through that."

Professor Hejnar: Each of these responses include specific scientific sources or an analysis on the validity of the sources. These responses align with research published by Sandra Calvert and Jennifer Kotler in 2003, which argued the positive effects of science educational shows on children's learning. This research focuses on the more short-term impact, much like James Bonus's 2019 article, which suggested that realism in childhood scientific communication increases scientific understanding. It's telling that the students who could immediately recall specific experiences with public science communication focused on popular media that develops educational content specifically for children.

These responses also indicate students in STEM engage with Priest's (2014) theory of critical science literacy, where science communicators and citizens have an equal responsibility to engage with learning and understanding the scientific process and procedures which govern science. As four of the students indicated, they sought out more scientifically minded sources, such as NASA or Mustard, thus partaking in their civic responsibility to be scientific-minded. Their responses highlighted the need for science information consumers to be critical of sources and information relayed. These responses also show the responsibility of science producers to create critical science literacy. This is evidenced when student 2 noted the Discovery channel "did some scientific things" or when student 4 acknowledged the impact of a high school educator that "sway[ed] [them] the most."

Although six of the responses noted specific scientific sources, 20 out of 21 students noted they actively engaged with public science communication. This trend may indicate that exposure to public science communication directly impacts students' choice to pursue a degree in STEM.

Transcript: How did public science communication influence their decision to earn a STEM degree?

Professor Hejnar: Despite a nearly unanimous response that students experienced public science communication prior to attending our institution, not everyone attributed this exposure to why they chose a STEM degree. Note that the student interviewees were all pursuing Bachelor or Master of Science degrees from a range of fields. Most of our interviewees were enrolled in a traditional STEM major—science, technology, engineering, or math. Several interviewees were enrolled in degrees with strong STEM foundations, but that may not be considered STEM, such as aeronautical science majors, which prepares students to be pilots while embedding flight certifications within the major. All the respondents in this major said public science communication did not impact their degree choice.

A few students were in degrees more aligned with the humanities, such as broadcasting communication and homeland security. Other than aviation science majors, all other degree programs saw themselves actively engaging with public science communication. For instance, a student pursuing a masters in occupational safety management transitioned from communication/journalism into STEM because:

Interviewee: "I think that I started out very much on the communication side of things, um, and then I sort of moved into STEM because one of my big thoughts about STEM, um, and I think this is a big thing especially at different STEM-focused universities–I like to call it STEM brain, the idea of, like, being so focused on brass tacks that you lose sort of the broader ethical picture and an understanding of why things actually matter in the metaconversation. So, having those experiences and seeing sort of the sensationalism that a lot of those had was a pretty big part of pushing me in this direction."

Professor Hejnar: For this student, one motivation to become more STEM focused was due to the perceived lack of ethical responsibility in STEM communication, even if that was not realized prior to attending college. This relates directly to our discussion on digital literacy, specifically the student's nod to "sensationalism" [that results from Ofer Arazy et al. (2006)] and other phenomena of "the Wisdom of the Crowd," where the boundaries between expert and nonexpert become blurred. In this case, "STEM brain," as the student called it, can create a sensationalism if not presented appropriately to a large, digitally-created audience.

On the other hand, other non-STEM majors attributed previous public science communication as impactful to their degree path. The two communication majors indicated public science communication did directly impact their career journey. Although a more humanities aligned major, both communication-degree-seekers considered public science communication important to their career goals. For one of them, their interest in public science communication regarding psychology led them to add a human factors minor, while the other used public science communication to help guide her career path. Even a student majoring in homeland security stated that public science communication via social media had influenced her before attending college and has impacted her career journey. In many ways, this impact makes sense, as science communication via social media and digital news is accessible for everyone, especially for younger individuals.

The students who were most impacted by previous public science communication were the six engineering and six physical science majors. Of those interviewees, much credit was given to former public science communication they interacted with. When asked, "What part did previous experience of public science communication play into your decision to pursue a STEM degree?", there were several types of responses. One student responded:

Interviewee: "If I were not to have my VHS tapes of PBS shows translated into Spanish, I probably would not be studying a STEM major."

Professor Hejnar: For this student, the accessibility of previous public science communication impacted their degree. This supports the "Test of Scientific Literacy Skills" by Pamela Propsom, William Tobin, and Jacqueline Roberts (2023), which found science general education were more beneficial for specific demographic groups. Like other scholars have stated (Huttner-Koros, 2015), science often operates under the guise of a "universal language," which is historically English, and therefore not accessible for everyone. As this student response indicates, the accessibility of public science communication could directly influence their choice for a STEM degree.

Many of the other students had responses along the lines of this one respondent:

Interviewee: "Oh, 100%. 100%. I've always been interested in science, so this was an obvious choice. I didn't want to end up doing anything else, really."

Professor Hejnar: Based on this response, the choice to pursue a STEM degree is entwined with an innate interest in science, as well as access to public science communication. Although we suspected students in a STEM field may respond this way, we were surprised by the potentially negative portrayal of science communication which led a student to pursue a STEM degree. Take a listen:

Interviewee: "Yeah. I'd say, like, if you see something you believe to be true scientific information and it interests you, that could definitely, like, directly impact your choice of major in the future. Because, for example, I, you know, was interested in astronomy and saw like, cool things, I suppose, probably on Instagram, and I was like, oh, cool, astronomy and astrophysics… and it is nothing like astronomy and astrophysics."

Professor Hejnar: Although the student has continued to pursue a degree in astronomy and astrophysics, they indicate a disillusionment with the portrayal of this science and reality. However, it is unclear if this portrayal is due to misinformation of science or a misrepresentation of the lifestyle of this major. In a world influenced more and more by social media, it is possible the public science communication this student experienced was dramatized for more public audiences. This dramatization could occur out of a need to romanticize this STEM degree for non-STEM audiences, which would have positive impacts on social media ratings and stakeholder interests. Or it is possible this dramatization was in fact a misrepresentation of scientific information.

As we can see, early access to public science communication directly impacts students' choice, and ability, to pursue a degree in STEM. The impact seems greatest for engineering and physical science students, but it has also impacted non-STEM students who use their degree to focus on scientific topics and information. The responses, though, all support the cultural importance of scientific literacy and communication.